"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
On the Monday, August 23, 2005 edition of "The 700 Club," Reverend Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition who was also a 1988 candidate for the Republican nomination for president, said that Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, would make his nation "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent." And then he went on, inciting an international firestorm, with remarks that Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel called "terrorist statements."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Margaret Romao Toigo
nugget wrote: "I seriously doubt your intentions are objective commentary when you write 35+ paragraphs about something as trivial and negligible as Pat Robertson saying we should take somebody out."
But I didn't write an article about what Reverend Robertson said, I reported the controversy surrounding his statements.
nugget wrote, "I thought that Pat Robertson was a joke to most pundits christian/non-christian alike."
Personally, I thought this issue was a tempest in a teapot, but instead of writing a short editorial to that effect (which was my original intent when I began my research), I felt it would be more interesting to simply document it, thereby demonstrating the Reverend's credibility with various politicians, ministers, and academics.
I think I did a pretty good job of resisting the temptation to spin. If others do not agree with that assessment, I'd sure like to read their thoughts so that I might learn something about what sort of language is -- and is not -- interpreted as spin.
nugget wrote: "Mark, clearly some type of artist or creative person judging by the briskness and humor of his dialogue, swept in and starting breaking journalism syntax rules."
Which is why I suggested that he write his own article.
nugget wrote, "I still think you are avoiding his challenges, and I think it's because you are at loss for words, NOT because he is spinning a web or biding his time."
And I am beginning to suspect that you're attempting to egg me on because you are hoping for the lurid amusement of the verbal nastiness that will inevitably result from my taking him up on his challenges.
77 - Magnus
Can I just ask what makes America/Americans hate Chavez so much? MTSS makes no attept to hide his contempt for the president of Venezuela, and MRT agrees that he is an 'unsympathetic character'.
I invite you to comment the following aspects of President Chavez and rate them by importance, personally to you.
- He exports a lot of oil to the USA?
- He has a 70% approval rating (and don't you start me on fair and free elections - the US has a lot of work to do on that as well)
- He uses some of his oil revenue to provide health and education to some of the poorest neighborhoods in Venezuela
- He is on good terms with Fidel Castro
- He isn't white
- Many of his policies are social-democratic
- He isn't afraid to criticize the USA and its government
- you need somewhere else to use your weapons now that Iraq is proving both tedious and expensive
Just curious :)
Mx
78 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"Can I just ask what makes America/Americans hate Chavez so much?"
One word:
Communist
And you perhaps naive enough to believe that PR spin that comes out of Venezuela?
Are you aware that the same type of PR spin comes out of Cuba? (which is why people risk life and limb to escape to the US in makeshift rafts)
79 - Dave Nalle
>>- He is on good terms with Fidel Castro<<
More like worships Castro.
>>- He isn't white<<
I've seen pictures. His skin is whiter than mine and he's got more European blood than my wife.
>>- Many of his policies are social-democratic<<
Well, outright communits, actually.
And have you seen any of the comments on his abuse of the press in Venezuela? Are you aware that his political opponents and protestors tend to get murdered or dragged off to jail without trial and tortured? Did you know that the courts no longer have any judicial autonomy? Or for that matter that it's now illegal to criticize Chavez in public?
But the fact is that it's not so much that Americans hate HIM, but that he hates Americans. Remember, Pat Robertson was responding to comments Chavez made that the thought America was planning to have him assassinated.
Dave
80 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Doug Hannan wrote, "He only wants you to condemn 'radical [Muslim] clerics spewing hatred against Jews.'"
It may appear as such on the surface, but way back in comment #7, Mark the Sane and Sensible called me a fraud in response to my assertion that, "It is unfair and counterproductive to paint the entirety of any group with a broad brush, no matter the extremism of its fanatics nor the silence of its moderates."
I took that as a warning to avoid that line of discussion because I have engaged in this "debate" before and Mark the Sane and Sensible's rhetoric -- no matter how well-written it is -- has all of the earmarks of a classic trap in which any sort of nuanced discourse is met with predictable "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" accusations.
81 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Ms. Toigo:
The lurid amusement you suspect will result from a verbal sparring match with me should not deter you. What are these blogs if not for entertainment purposes? If we are were as serious as we sometimes proclaim, we'd be seeking real jobs at the major metro dailies or even at CNN, MSNBC, or Fox and actually getting paid big bucks to rant and rave.
"I reported the controversy surrounding his statements."
That's a clever sidestep from the truth. Please admit the truth that it is your wish to discredit an American Christian cleric's right to free speech on the public airwaves.
If you really believe in your convictions, you should be willing to go to most any length to defend or promote them. If that requires some strident verbal jousting, then what harm can result from that? You earn more respect that way. At this point, I can't respect a person that isn't willing to brawl a bit to defend their views.
And I still believe you choose your targets based on their ability to exact retribution.
It seems that so many bloggers enjoy attacking those that aren't present to defend themselves, like President Bush or Pat Robertson, yet, when the guns are pointed back at them, they run for cover like cowards and cry foul.
I'm afraid I must place you in this category, based on what you've indicated recently in your posts.
82 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The Free Muslims Coalition believes that "there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism."
In a February 12, 2003 article, entitled Memo to Osama bin Laden Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D. writes, "I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any 'Islamic state' established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best."
Speaking at the conference in Kuala Lumpur, Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam. "I do not subscribe to the idea of a clash among civilizations. People of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity," he said.
83 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Ms. Toigo:
Let me clarify--there is a real purpose behind my attack of this statement:
"It is unfair and counterproductive to paint the entirety of any group with a broad brush, no matter the extremism of its fanatics nor the silence of its moderates."
I was attacking your egalitarianism. All cultures, people, and philosophies (which would include religions) are NOT on the same moral plane. Christianity and Judaism are far superior to Islam as far as tolerance and recognizing personal liberty. Need I say more? It's fairly obvious that this is true. I dare anyone to refute that. If anyone does, try first to forget to be politically correct. I despise political correctness.
84 - Silas Kain
There is no religion on this globe today that is exclusively tolerant. Every religion has its share of extremists. Wars have been fought on behalf of Deities since the Great Creator first breathed a spirit into a creature evolved from primates. However, in the Great Creator's defense, He/She does have a sense of humor. How else would you explain Carrot Top?
85 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mark the Sane and Sensible wrote, "The lurid amusement you suspect will result from a verbal sparring match with me should not deter you."
Yes, it should. I do not find sado-masochism entertaining. You're not looking for a discussion, you're looking for a fight, and I don't do that.
Mark the Sane and Sensible wrote, "If you really believe in your convictions, you should be willing to go to most any length to defend or promote them. If that requires some strident verbal jousting, then what harm can result from that? You earn more respect that way. At this point, I can't respect a person that isn't willing to brawl a bit to defend their views."
I would rather retain my self-respect by not allowing myself to be duped into a shouting contest of "strident verbal jousting." Any fool can do that and most fools do.
I will not "go to any length" to defend or promote my convictions because doing so is indeed harmful to them.
When we speak out for our causes or convictions, we are also speaking for everyone else who supports our positions. I'd rather not engage in a "brawl" that could potentially damage not only my reputation, but the reputations of others who hold the same views.
This is why the strongest rebukes against Reverend Robertson were those that came from the Christian community. The Reverend (and others) might think he was just speaking for himself, but perception being reality in the minds of most, he was actually speaking for all Christians.
And now, those Christians must make statements denouncing the Reverend so that Christians and the Christian faith might avoid being stained by the scandal.
BTW, which view was I supposed to be defending anyway? I did not express an opinion in my article.
I did submit, "The scriptures of most of the world's major religions, including Islam, preach peace. It is only when people read and misinterpret said scriptures (and twist their meanings for their own Earthly purposes) that religions become associated with violence.
"Wrath always begets wrath. It is unfair and counterproductive to paint the entirety of any group with a broad brush, no matter the extremism of its fanatics nor the silence of its moderates."
Is that the view that I should be defending? Because speaking out against bigotry is a very easy thing to do.
But why should I bother doing that for your amusement, Mark the Sane and Sensible? It is not as if your respect is something that I covet.
And any assertions I might make in that regard are only going to be met with yet more of your insults and accusations, which is the game you wish to play here, isn't it?
86 - Magnus
Mark: "And you perhaps naive enough to believe that PR spin that comes out of Venezuela?"
Are you perhaps naive enough to believe that PR spin that comes out of the White House?
Commies... jeez the cold war is over, and I thought the war on Islam was the new McCarthyism, but obviously not. Perhaps invading Venezuela WOULD be a good idea. After all, that's what the US thought about Vietnam once upon a time.
Oh and by the way, China is best friends with the US. errm. Hipocrisy comes to mind here.
Mr Nalle, "And have you seen any of the comments on his abuse of the press in Venezuela?"
Right, because American press is so free and open, right?
I don't want to go on but I can if you push me. Ownership of media is a far more powerful censor than any government action
87 - Silas Kain
Ownership of media is a far more powerful censor than any government action
Hallelujah, Magnus! Thank you from the bottom of my heart! The FCC's centralization of networks and ownership is the number one enemy of a free and thriving press. Journalists are afraid to go too far in their reporting because it would not be economically prudent. White House reporters tiptoe around Administration staff because they're afraid of the retribution that this Administration is noted for. That's why there's such a need for Bloggers, even with all the low life skanks on the extreme fringes on both sides.
88 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"Are you perhaps naive enough to believe that PR spin that comes out of the White House?"
I would always believe my own elected officials or any American for that matter before believing a bunch of stinking commie bastards from a third world shithole like Venezuela.
"Oh and by the way, China is best friends with the US. errm. Hipocrisy comes to mind here."
They aren't MY friends, but China seems to be more useful for our purposes at present, although I can't see what would be more useful than ensuring a steady flow of oil.
But no one listens to me when I say drill in ANWR and we wouldn't have to deal with these bastards.
89 - Magnus
Silas,
indeed, blogging has certainly democratised the media unlike no other event in the history of journalism.
Unfortunately, it also leads to a lot of red herrings and poor journalism, but in my view, that is certainly an acceptable price to pay for the opportunity to criticise those who try to shut you up.
I lived in Florida during and after 9/11 and anyone who claims that Freedom of speech is well and alive in the USA today is just plain wrong.
Reverend Robertson is a public enough person, in a country where most people theoretically share his faith, to get away with claiming free speech and getting many others to defend him.
On the other hand, I remember the cases of the FBI busting student dorms of people who were critical of the Bush regime, under the PATRIOT act. Where is their freedom of speech?
90 - Doug Hannan
Mark (so convinced he's sane he needs to constantly remind us) wrote:
"All cultures, people, and philosophies (which would include religions) are NOT on the same moral plane. Christianity and Judaism are far superior to Islam as far as tolerance and recognizing personal liberty."
Aren't we just the master race. So superior in fact that the murder of our lessers is perfectly justified. Especially them durn "communits" (as one poster so charmingly calls them), and especially if they could threaten our oil supply. As the good reverend claimed "If we kill him I don't think the oil will stop flowing". Which is, of course, like Iraq, what all this is about.
All your claims of superiority (and sanity) evaporate when you adopt a position that advocates the murder of your opponents. The juvenile canard that "the Muslims do it too" is hardly an excuse don't you think? I condemn their incitements to violence as much as I condemn yours, so don't try that little rhetorical trick on me.
91 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mark the Sane and Sensible wrote, "All cultures, people, and philosophies (which would include religions) are NOT on the same moral plane. Christianity and Judaism are far superior to Islam as far as tolerance and recognizing personal liberty. Need I say more?"
Yes, much much more. How about giving some specific examples of the differences in tolerance and the recognition of personal liberty among those three religions?
How about elucidating upon the moral relativism that you used to determine which cultures, people, and philosophies are on inferior or superior moral planes?
Do you realize that you are now obliged to justify and defend your bigoted assertions?
Because they're really arrogant and offensive, as manifestations of hatred born of ignorance and prejudice always are. My only response to them thus far is, how dare you?
The notion of "political correctness" (something we used to call tact) has indeed gotten out of hand in recent years. I despise the way that some of its more outlandish terminology mangles the English language.
However, it is one thing to criticize the silliness of that movement and quite another to complain about how it prevents people from being able to effectively express their various manifestations of bigotry -- even though it really does no such thing as our First Amendment is still in effect. The people who do the complaining are not as concerned about their right to free speech as much as they are concerned about the rebukes they will receive in return for using slurs and making hateful remarks.
92 - gonzo marx
point , Margaret
score is 38969062049640926905609669 for Margaret to naught for Mark of the SS...
do carry on
Excelsior!
93 - Silas Kain
Gonzo, you short changed Margaret by about 2 billion points.
94 - gonzo marx
sorry Silas, was a bit late...and ran out of beads on my abacus...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
95 - Magnus
It is with regret that I go to Germany in a few hours, where I will be devoid of this wonderful thing called the World Wide Web and the chance to follow this very interesting debate.
My thoughts are with you all and I look forward to seeing where this thread has led when I get back and whether it's still alive.
Many thanks to Margaret, gonzo, silas and doug. It is nice to see that there are still some people that can see and think beyond the smoke.
Have a wonderful bank holiday (if indeed you have a holiday on Monday) and I hope I run into you again.
Mx
96 - nugget
"I will not "go to any length" to defend or promote my convictions because doing so is indeed harmful to them.
When we speak out for our causes or convictions, we are also speaking for everyone else who supports our positions. I'd rather not engage in a "brawl" that could potentially damage not only my reputation, but the reputations of others who hold the same views."
Don't get me wrong Margaret, but that's silly. Do you never speak? You only report huh? Objectivism for the sake of egalitarianism is a farce in today's society. We all sweat, stink, and have strong visceral opinions about our surroundings whether we can articulate them or not.
It is unfortunate, however, that mark's pent up convictions were dealt a bit sloppily and with you in the cross hairs, but I don't necessarily believe he wants to berate your sensibilities and tarnish your reputation.
you typed,
"I have no arguments with him on several points, especially the assertion that Reverend Robertson's on-air remarks (for which he has since apologized) were nothing compared to the fatwas of radical Muslim clerics. I also agree that Mr. Chavez is a rather unsympathetic character in this particular melodrama.
I saw the trap being set when I wrote, in comment #6, "It is unfair and counterproductive to paint the entirety of any group with a broad brush, no matter the extremism of its fanatics nor the silence of its moderates."
And Mark the Sane and Sensible replied, in comment #7, "Tell that to the families of the Israeli women and children that have been carbombed by the PA over the years, you fraud..."
He called me a "fraud" because I spoke against the practice of painting the entirety of any group with a broad brush. I immediately recognized this as the set up for a nasty rhetorical trap.""
Calling anyone a fraud or hack I agree discounts some credibility. But that doesn't mean that you should back down because he has set up some rhetorical trap. It's interesting how you word that. If someone throws you curveball, SWING. Acting selfless, cold, or composed won't do you any good.
He attacked the spin that he associates with the subjects you report on. Telling him to create an article of his own is superfluous. I mean come on. You really think Muslim terrorist threads are going to attract this much attention? Don't get me wrong, I'm further back in the seats than mark, but I still think you won't bite the bait because the hook is too big.
BTW, you have recently "stooped" to mark's level. So how about gaining some composure, tone the redirection, and start answering some of his reasonable objections to muslim extremism. Are you aloof to the Islam faith and the crucible of wrath it seems to have stirred in recent years? I doubt it.
97 - Dave Nalle
Magnus: "Right, because American press is so free and open, right?"
As free as any press in the world. And while big corporations may control big media, here in the US anyone with a few dollars can publish some sort of journal, or speak out on the web, and get his message to people and it's legal and protected. The same is no longer true in Venezuela.
BTW, they DO have the internet in Germany. When I go over there I have no problem finding internet cafes where I can use my powerbook, or hooking up to AOL - which I have solely for use in Europe - by dialup if I have to.
Dave
98 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Wow, the libbie circle jerk is out there full force tonight! Got all your palms greased, fellers? Gonzo, doug, and silas? Gettin' ready to pound the nasty ol' conservative? (Silas, I know you may take a greater delight in this little bit of comraderie!)
99 - Doug Hannan
Your regression to this purile drivel in the abscence of any attempt to answer the compelling arguments made against your position conclusively confirms utter moral bankruptcy of your arguments. Goodbye and good riddance.
100 - nugget
in other words, "Hello my name is doug and I have no sense of humor."
101 - The Errant Fool
Just a quick question: who at this point really cares if Chavez is communist or not? Is it just the word the angers people? The echo back to the Cold War era or does anyone really think that somehow, someway, Chavez' communist leanings will infect the world?
102 - Doug Hannan
in other words, "Hello my name is doug and I have no sense of humor."
"Hello my name is nugget and I find it side-splittingly funny when someone whose arguments have been convincingly demolished can only respond by suggesting his debating opponents are getting together for a circle jerk."
At least he's not advocating we be hunted down and killed as his hero Pat would.
103 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Thank you for your kind words and support, gonzo, Silas and Magnus, they mean more to me than mere words can express.
nugget wrote: "Objectivism for the sake of egalitarianism is a farce in today's society. We all sweat, stink, and have strong visceral opinions about our surroundings whether we can articulate them or not."
Or whether we care to articulate them and in what manner, which is why I restrain myself from engaging in verbal brawls. I do not take flamebait, no matter how tempting it may be.
"I don't necessarily believe he wants to berate your sensibilities and tarnish your reputation."
Mark the Sane and Sensible seems to want to berate the sensibilities of anyone who does not subscribe to the prejudices he has been so passionately promoting here.
But I am the only one who can tarnish my reputation, by pandering to bigots as if their indefensible assertions of hatred are worthy of serious discussion.
If someone throws you curveball, SWING. Acting selfless, cold, or composed won't do you any good.
I think have been swinging at those curve balls rather effectively, knocking most of them out of the proverbial park.
I simply refuse to go on the defensive about my egalitarianism., which is the objective of Mark the Sane and Sensible's rhetorical trap.
Acting selfless, cold and composed has done me a lot of good here. I have responded to Mark the Sane and Sensible's attack on my egalitarianism in comment #91.
As of this moment, I am still waiting to read his justification and defense of the bigoted assertions he made in comment #83, "All cultures, people, and philosophies (which would include religions) are NOT on the same moral plane. Christianity and Judaism are far superior to Islam as far as tolerance and recognizing personal liberty."
104 - Al Barger
Miss Margaret, I think you're kinda all wet on this Robertson thing, but you sure seem like a fine gal.
I sure am glad to have you around providing some of the fair and balanced part to some of the right wing nutjobs around here, especially me.
XOX
105 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Thanks, Al. I am happy to oblige.
106 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Ms Toigo:
This stupid website's software will not permit me to post my response to your questions because it "thinks" the amount of hyperlinks I've included in the response to support my contention that Islam is a morally inferior religion is an attempt to spam the site.
I'll try posting it in sections.
107 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
PART 1
The dhimmi diva of blogcritics.com inquired:
"How about giving some specific examples of the differences in tolerance and the recognition of personal liberty among those three religions?"
I am not interested in making comparisons to suit your agenda to be a Muslim apologist. I am not in a classroom with a bunch of pointy headed PhD's positing theories and abstract scenarios. I am only interested in indicting Islam based on the facts at hand. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it. If the truth makes you squeamish, then perhaps you are in the wrong business.
Here are links that contain information that prove beyond all doubt that Islam supresses individual rights and rules its followers with a totalitarian fist, in addition to being a front for world wide terrorism.
Please note that there is no counterpart in the present practice of Christianity and Judaism that matches the heinous record of modern Islam. So that should suffice for your request for comparisons.
Let's start with the Koran 4:34, shall we?
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-koran-4-34.htm
How about the Shariah? Some really lovely stuff here. And yes, folks, it's still practiced today in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, to name a few places:
"A husband has the legal right to restrict his wife's freedom of movement. He may prevent her from leaving her home without his permission unless there is a necessity or legitimate reason for her to do otherwise."
here
108 - Dave Nalle
Mark, you can post up to 3 links per comment. That ought to be enough in most cases. If it's not, become a blogcritic and put it in an article.
There, that should have scared the editors.
Dave
109 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
PART 2
Please note that in Islamic countries women are still required to wear a very restrictive dress style that's over a thousand years old. Wow, that's real freedom, isn't it? But have any of you liberal apologists who fancy yourselves as feminists ever protested on behalf of Islamic women? Of course not, because you're all hypocrites and frauds. But when some major American corporate CEO worker pinches some secretary's ass, you throw a major snit and start a boycott.
Some real horror stories about the practice of the "religion of peace" --
here
here
110 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
PART 3
Morelinks to horror stories about the "religion of peace" and its wonderful human rights record, placing it on the same moral plane as Christianity and Judaism
here
here
here
111 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
PART 4
Here is a list of what the members of the "religion of peace" are doing to Hindus in Kashmir:
1. Strangulation by using steel wires;
2. Hanging;
3. Impaling;
4. Branding with red hot irons,
5. Burning alive;
6. Lynching;
7. Draining of blood in contrived terrorist underground hospitals;
8. Gouging of eyes before assassination;
9. Slicing;
10. Dismemberment of body;
11. Breaking of limbs;
12. Drowning alive;
13. Dragging to death;
14. Slaughter.
I need not remind you of what some members of the "religion of peace' have done to some Americans on Al-Jazeera. Tell me, some of you really smart ones reading this, have any Catholics beheaded anyone on EWTN lately? I don't think so.
The preceding list of abuses can be found at this link
And what indictment of Islam wouldn't be complete without a few choice quotes from the "peaceful" clerics that run the mosques where members of the "religion of peace" come to worship and commune with their God:
"...None of the Jews refrain from committing any possible evil. If the Labor party commits the evil and the crime, the Likud party stands by it; and if the Likud party commits the evil and the crime, the Labor party stands by it.... The Jews are Jews, whether Labor or Likud... They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They all want to distort truth, but we are in possesion of the truth."
"O brother believers, the criminals, the terrorists - are the Jews, who have butchered our children, orphaned them, widowed our women and desecrated our holy places and sacred sites. They are the terrorists. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them: Allah will torture them at your hands, and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers...."
"O brothers in belief, this is the case of the Jews and their habitual conduct, and what happened yesterday, and has been going on for two weeks, and before that for many years, and which will be repeated in future years unless we stand up like men and unless we have the known Muslim position, [the position] of those who wage Jihad in the path of Allah, those who defend their rights and who sacrifice all that is dear to them."
"O brothers in belief, the beautiful bride has a costly price and dowry.... Our bride is paradise, o brothers in belief. ...The cost and the dowry of this bride, the dowry of this paradise, is that we fight in the path of Allah, and kill and be killed."
"Allah has purchased from the believers their persons and their property in return for the promise that they shall have paradise, for they fight in the cause of Allah, and they slay the enemy and are slain. This is a promise that He [Allah] has made incumbent upon Himself, as set out in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Koran..."
"...We say to the Jews, and we say to Clinton, and we say to all those who supported the Jews and still cooperate with the Jews, we say to them, that this will not shake us, we are the Palestinian people, who are positioned in the land of the Isra' and Mi'raj. It will not shake a single hair of ours. Our determination will not sway. We will raise the banner of Jihad..."
"...America and Europe and the world were shocked by the kidnapping of three tramps, the kidnapping of three wretched soldiers, and the killing of two in Ramallah. But their feelings were not moved, and they did not shudder when they saw the children Muhammad ad-Durrah and others - women, and men, and youths - being martyred by cannons and missiles, and all the barbaric instruments that the Jews possess."
"They were moved, for the sake of five persons, and the world went into turmoil and it will not stop for Clinton or for the old hag Albright, they will not be relieved, and they will not cease to be concerned, and they will not rest until the Jews return to their families. But as for the Palestinians, as for this pure blood, it can go to Hell in the eyes of the Americans and Europe and the Jews..."
"This is the truth, O Brothers in belief. From here, Allah the almighty has called upon us not to ally with the Jews or the Christians, not to like them, not to become their partners, not to support them, and not to sign agreements with them. And he who does that, is one of them, as Allah said: 'O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies, for they are allies of one another. Who from among you takes them as allies will indeed be one of them...'"
"...The Jews are the allies of the Christians, and the Christians are the allies of the Jews, despite the enmity that exists between them. The enmity between the Jews and the Christians is deep, but all of them are in agreement against the monotheists - against those who say, 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger,' that is - they are against you, O Muslims."
"Even if an agreement of Gaza is signed - we shall not forget Haifa, and Acre, and the Galilee, and Jaffa, and the Triangle and the Negev, and the rest of our cities and villages. It is only a matter of time. The weak will not remain forever weak, and the strong will not remain forever strong... If we are weak today ... and we are not able to regain our rights, then at least we have to pass on the banner - waving high - to our children and grandchildren..."
"...None of the factions is allowed to stand on the sidelines at this stage, or not to think well of avenging our pure martyrs and wounded. ...Our people must unite in one trench, and receive armaments from the Palestinian leadership, to confront the Jews. By Allah, the Jews, O brothers in belief, do not know, nor have they ever known throughout history, anything but force and Jihad in the path of Allah. The Jews are like a [gas] pedal - as long as you step on it with your foot, it doesn't move, but if you lift your foot from it, it hurts you and punishes you. This is the case of the Jews."
"Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them - and those who stand by them - they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims - because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it to be the outpost of their civilization - and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and the crusaders, hanging over the necks of the monotheists, the Muslims in these lands. They wanted the Jews to be their spearhead ..."
"... Let us put our trust in Allah, close ranks, and unite our words, and the slogan of us all should be, 'Jihad! Jihad! For the sake of Palestine, and for the sake of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa!'"
"...We will not give up a single grain of soil of Palestine, from Haifa, and Jaffa, and Acre, and Mulabbas [Petah Tikva] and Salamah, and Majdal [Ashkelon], and all the land, and Gaza, and the West Bank ..."
"...Allah, deal with the Jews, your enemies and the enemies of Islam. Deal with the crusaders, and America, and Europe behind them, O Lord of the worlds. ..."
here
And please keep this in mind, all you frightened Muslim apologists, there is NO effort within the Muslim community to stop any of the world wide atrocities committed in the name of Allah. They too, are cowards, like many of you who think that Islam is on the same moral plane as Christianity and Judaism.
112 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
dave nalle:
"If it's not, become a blogcritic and put it in an article."
I won't pay to have an ISP host a website for me so I can start a blog, unless you have some suggestions where there is free blog hosting. My ISP comcast gives me a free webpage, could I be linked from there?
113 - David R. Mark
Mark the sane -- blogger.com is free.
114 - Al Barger
Mark, you DEFINITELY should have your own blog. Mr Mark is steering you right, www.blogger.com is free, and easy to use. Jump all over it.
115 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Al: thanks, I checked your site tonight. I salute you as a fellow Rand devotee, although over the years I've had to modify my adherence to her principles. I don't think she would have approved of my strident support for Israel.
116 - Al Barger
Thanks Mark. Rand is, however, but one of many voices I hear in my head.
Actually though, I could imagine Rand being a big supporter of Israel, certainly at this point.
117 - D L Ennis
I grew up in Va. Beach, Va. and had dealings with Pat Robertson on a personal level many times, and I can tell you, that he is an unequivocal simpleton and couldn’t care less about anyone but himself and his own. Anyone that takes anything that comes out of his mouth seriously is badly mistaken. This most recent episode is not a reflection on America or the American people but on a delusional immoral moron. This sure does not deserve all of the attention people are giving it.
D L
118 - Dave Nalle
We could be mean to him and suggest Xenga or Myspace for his blog.
Not sure Rand would approve of giving up Gaza, though.
Dave
119 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
To my dear dhimmi diva:
Being anti-egalitarian is not being bigoted. It is recognizing that gray areas do not exist and there is right and wrong, good and evil. It takes far more effort and courage to be unilateral and absolute. It's too easy to wallow in the comfort of the nebulous gray area because no judgements of others are required by its inhabitants. Most any attitude or behavioral choice is acceptable within one's individual interpretation of a subjective morality. Egalitarians remind me in equal parts of the pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the characters in Fahrenheit 451 where an imposed "equality" turns the populace into unthinking automatons. People are not truly "equal" and never will be. There will always be haves and have nots, the weak and the strong, the beautiful and the ugly, the exploiters and the exploited, and yes, even the good and the evil. Egalitarianism is just a few steps away from the principles behind socialism and communism, two doctrines I vehemently despise and consider the most detrimental to proper human health and happiness. Human beings were never wired to forcibly relinquish their bounty or resources to anyone outside their own immediate families or tribes.
I've also observed that when "cultural awareness" is jammed down people's throats in the effort to unite, the farther apart people actually become.
120 - nugget
as in ayn rand? oh bother. I may have some qualms with you mark, if you keep this direction. Until then I'll stay in the cheaper seats. Carry on.
121 - nugget
"although over the years I've had to modify my adherence to her principles."
I missed this. fair enough. Disregard my previous post.
122 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
nugget:
may I ask what issues you have with ayn rand?
Rand liberated me in many ways after I first read The Fountainhead back in the 70s. I realized that it was perfectly OK to live for your own sake and to think that charity was slavery, among other things. I had grown up in a very conservative home so the leap wasn't too great. I had already learned to despise socialism at a very young age.
123 - nugget
"Rand liberated me in many ways after I first read The Fountainhead back in the 70s."
I imagine that if I were alive in the 70s, the Fountainhead would have been one of my keepsakes amongst all the bogus pretentious lies prevalent during that time.
I can only speak, however, about my experience with Atlas Shrugged. I'm sure you've read and analyzed this brilliant portrait of man and culture. Her depth is staggering and above platonism in every way. The greeks don't stand a chance. Not even Machiavelli could accomplish what Rand did. And her intentions were not political reform (obviously).
My problem with ayn rand (and forgive me for not citing original text) is her adherence to the very premise of her life...that is, objectivism...modernism. Rand advocated a certain social consciousness above and beyond anything her current culture could articulate. I don't think postmodernists have to this day answered rand's call for rationalism.
If you recall Thomas Jefferson was a humanist. If only he could read Rand's approach to history and mankind. I think he would rejoice and keel over simultaneously. Only I think Jefferson was the greatest mastermind of circular logic in recorded history, and he was incapable of trusting or putting his faith in something metaphysical because of his pride. The same is true for ayn rand. She lacked FAITH. John Cage, Richard Wagner, Hitler, Mark Twain, Aldous Huxley, TS Eliot to name a few with the same terrible and great predicament. Geniuses with hate in their hearts.
I'll have to continue this in the morning because I am falling asleep. I assure you that I'll get to the point.
124 - nugget
I may retract that TS eliot comment. I believe he was a man of faith in his later years. A man, mind you, who deserves an honorable mention behind Shakespeare and Dante for his collective intuition, audacity, and talent for prose or poetry of any kind.
125 - Doug Hannan
And you accused me of having a circle jerk!
"Being anti-egalitarian is not being bigoted. It is recognizing that gray areas do not exist and there is right and wrong, good and evil. It takes far more effort and courage to be unilateral and absolute."
Just wondering how these "right and wrong, good and evil" platitudes relate to political assassination for the sake of protecting oil deliveries.
Discuss. With special reference to the theories of Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler.